One of the horror genre's "most widely read critics" (Rue Morgue # 68), "an accomplished film journalist" (Comic Buyer's Guide #1535), and the award-winning author of Horror Films of the 1980s (2007), The Rock and Roll Film Encyclopedia (2007) and Horror Films of the 1970s (2002), John Kenneth Muir, presents his blog on film, television and nostalgia, named one of the Top 100 Film Studies Blog on the Net.

Monday, November 10, 2014

Ask JKM a Question: Can critics appreciate something that is truly "new?"

A regular reader, David
writes:

“I am a long-time reader and here is my question to you. Is it possible for
critics to embrace new forms of art?

David, your question is
an important one, and something I often attempt to be mindful of.The broadest answer is that critics are
people too, and like every other professional, they can run the gamut in terms
of how they behave or react.

We do not live in a
vacuum, and the works of art that all of us encounter on a daily basis do not
arise from the void. Instead, those works look and sound as they do for a reason, and
that reason has much to do with historical context.

So, perhaps it is unlikely in the first place for a critic to be faced with a work of art that is truly new. The form itself may be new, but the art fits in somewhere along a historical continuum.

For example, knowing
that J.J. Abrams loves the work of Steven Spielberg as well as the Star
Wars films is a crucial doorway to an interpretation of his film-work.

Or, our understanding that John Carpenter grew up loving Westerns, and was a fan of
Howard Hawks, serves an entry point for a deeper analysis of works such as Assault
on Precinct 13 (1976) or even In The Mouth of Madness (1994).

In cases such as these,
you certainly want a critic watching a film who understands context and
history, and can compare and contrast
works of art with older ones. We have, literally, thousands of years of literature and over a century of cinema to compare to. Why not compare and contrast? Why not draw on the past?

Does this mean that
critics can’t truly reckon with something new?

I don’t believe so, though there is always -- I would readily acknowledge -- resistance in some critical circles to new forms of art.

We saw this resistance with television.

At first, TV programming was written off as an inferior
cousin to film, designed merely to sell detergent. TV was not considered “art” until fairly
recently, and mainly that was because of a paradigm shift towards niche programming
(like Mad Men, Sons of Anarchy, Dexter, or The Walking Dead).

It is impossible not to look at those series
as works of art, as something akin visual novels. Sons of Anarchy is actually a perfect example. I don't know that there have been, historically, many series about such a conflicted group of anti-heroes and their travails over such a long period, so in that sense it is "new" or "new-ish" (if we take into account The Shield or The Sopranos). But one way to view the series is as a dedicated re-parsing of Shakespeare's Hamlet. So again, context helps us understand and appreciate a work of art more. It is therefore the job of the responsible critic to bring up comparisons that are helpful.

Today, I would apply the
same argument to video games. There are
clearly critics out there who refuse to accept the idea that video games can be
works of art, in part because of the “interactivity” factor, I presume.

I would suggest that this is a short-sighted point of view.

Just one example: Minecraft
is inspiring a creative young generation on a scale today that makes the Star
Trek fandom of the 1970s and 1980s look like a small gathering of friends.

Those who love Minecraft create music videos
of it, craft their own worlds in the game, and find other ways to express their artistic
side, using it as a starting point. For examples, there are adventures of original characters in the Minecraft world, like Stampy or iBallistic Squid, and they are the "creation" of talented individuals inspired by a video game.

But because the video
game format is (relatively) young, I don’t see critics rushing to discuss it in
terms of its artistry, but rather in terms of its “play-ability.” Certainly, the late (great) Roger Ebert, whom I
admire very much, was dead set against the idea of video games as art. This is an example of critics not having nearly enough vision, in my opinion, and not seeing the possibility of a newly-born form.

In just one generation, this argument will
look short-sighted, and wrong-headed.

So critics have failings
and biases, for certain.

But good ones seek to recognize those limitations and
overcome them. This is a battle I have fought and still re-fight, occasionally. It is all too easy to shit on the new generation of
horror films, for instance, either torture porn or found-footage. But I have discovered that if I let myself
engage with the material, there is great artistry in both of those
sub-genres.

Again, however, I
contextualize those “new” things in terms of the culture, and in terms of
historical context.

Perhaps the short answer here is that critics need to reference the past to understand the present, must
remember the old to assess the new, but sometimes have trouble countenancing
forms (like video games) that don’t possess immediate or clear antecedents.

In defense of critics, broadly, I don’t believe they
are alone in this. The very existence of
the Internet has raised all kinds of questions for government and businesses,
for example. Is it a public utility? A
service? A basic human right? A publisher? People are still trying to figure that out, just as critics are still trying to figure out video games, and to a degree, television.

Lastly I don't much like the word "critic." I much prefer to be known as a writer who appreciates art. But generally I think that critics can look at new (or newer) forms in a way that is rewarding, but to do so consistently, one must constantly check ones' own biases at the door. Some critics are better at that than others, and it has nothing to do with age or generation. '

No comments:

Post a Comment

About John

award-winning author of 27 books including Horror Films FAQ (2013), Horror Films of the 1990s (2011), Horror Films of the 1980s (2007), TV Year (2007), The Rock and Roll Film Encyclopedia (2007), Mercy in Her Eyes: The Films of Mira Nair (2006),, Best in Show: The Films of Christopher Guest and Company (2004), The Unseen Force: The Films of Sam Raimi (2004), An Askew View: The Films of Kevin Smith (2002), The Encyclopedia of Superheroes on Film & Television (2004), Exploring Space:1999 (1997), An Analytical Guide to TV's Battlestar Galactica (1998), Terror Television (2001), Space:1999 - The Forsaken (2003) and Horror Films of the 1970s (2002).

Follow by Email

What the Critics Say...

"...some of the best writing about the genre has been done by John Kenneth Muir. I am particularly grateful to him for the time and attention he's paid to things others have overlooked, under-appreciated and often written off. His is a fan's perspective first, but with a critic's eye to theme and underscore, to influence and pastiche..." - Chris Carter, creator of The X-Files, in the foreword to Horror Films FAQ (October 2013).

"Hands down, John Kenneth Muir is one of the finest critics and writers working today. His deep analysis of contemporary American culture is always illuminating and insightful. John's film writing and criticism is outstanding and a great place to start for any budding writer, but one should also examine his work on comic books, TV, and music. His weighty catalog of books and essays combined with his significant blog production places him at the top of pop culture writers. Johns work is essential in understanding the centrality of culture in modern society." - Professor Bob Batchelor, cultural historian and Executive Director of the James Pedas Communication Center at Thiel College (2014).

"...an independent film scholar, [Muir] explains film studies concepts in a language that is reader-friendly and engaging..." (The Hindu, 2007)"...Muir's genius lies in his giving context to the films..." (Choice, 2007)